Hello, I am currently doing a research project about Australia aborigines.

I would like to know about how aborigines are now allowed to participate in political activities in Australia after the 1967 Referendum. I would like to ask about how their political status has taken a better turn compared to their statuses before the referendum.

Thank you.

autumn_wind,

In a short answer to your question the Aborigines are like political football. The left of politics often puts on claytons compassion in order to kick the Government. Some on the left and right are out and out racist. Speak to the people in the communities and those who work with real aborigines to get the real truth.

runner,

Thank you for the information provided. However, I would also like to further inquire about the progression of aborigines in the field of politics. Is there a vivid evidence that they are now allowed to participate in the parliament? I would also like to inquire about a direct way to contact with the aborigines or people in the community who can give views on this matter.

Thank you once again.

Unfortunately for our Aboriginal Australians they have not generally reached a level of literacy where they can really participate in the electoral process in any significant way.
That and the fact that there are not enough of them in any electorates to make any difference.

AW, since 1967 the Kooris(preferred term) have the same suffrage rights as the rest of us ie at 18yo they get to vote, male and female alike. Voting is compulsory in Australia, or at least attending the polling booth and having your name marked off on the electoral role is.
There have been a few kooris elected to various parliaments in Oz,at both federal and state levels. These have been as representatives of major parties and not as aboriginals.

Firstly, I think you need to be clear re your terms.
The term Aboriginal as used in the 1967 referendum was far narrower than the term Aboriginal as applied today.

No disrespect intended -but the term aboriginal now has ( by plan, or default) become something of a ‘catch-all’ term.

Many who now identify themselves as Aboriginals were not excluded prior to 1967

Such an approach wont make you popular or rich in this century - but there are sound prospects it will make you one of few researches cited by future generation-when current fads have run their course

many australians think they are citizens, like other ozzies. but i think all ozzies are subjects of the crown, represented by the governor general. there is a fundamental difference between citizen and subject, although most ozzies refuse to consider this distinction.

if the federal constitution is the fundamental law of the land, then the gg is master of the nation. if the constitution is an empty document,and the nation is ruled by a 'prime minister' nowhere established in law, then the laws of the land are simply a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' figleaf over rule by politicians who are no more legitimate than bandits.

what is the political status of anyone, in a land that treats it's own law with contempt?

The government makes people believe we are subjects of the crown as they themselves are sworn in under that banner.(which by international law makes them foreign agents. There is no Australian Constitution,as it was never created by Australians for Australians.The constitution we believe is ours is in fact an "act of the British parliament" adopted as such!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=687

As a “constitutionalist” I am concerned as to the true intentions of the Framers of the constitution without political interpretation.
At federation, Aboriginals who had “citizenship” (this includes franchise) were able to vote in the first Federal election in 1901. They were deemed equal to other Australians. Australians are those residing in the continent Australia. “Citizenship” is a political status and not a “nationality” as Australians born or naturalised are and remain to be “Subject of the British Crown” as that is embedded in the constitution. Nut the political spin of the government pretends otherwise.
While the legislation stated voting is compulsory, I succeeded after a 5-year legal battle in court on all constitutional grounds that compulsory voting is unconstitutional, and I refuse to vote, despite being a candidate in elections. The court upheld this to be correct!

On 27-5-2007 the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal DOOMSDAY of the holding of the 1967 referendum I published

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1

This book sets out how the Aboriginals were robbed of their “CITIZENSHIP” and no longer are equal amongst other Australians.
Legislation only can rob them of equality, and cannot give them equality that they already had prior to the 1967 con-job referendum.

Go to my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and use my email address shown there and I can send out FREE OF CHARGE a Chapter of the book. This posting would not allow for the extensive set out you need.

As Aboriginals are, so to say, “non-citizens” we may now have the Federal government deporting them all, as they do at times with other Australians, disregarding what is constitutionally appropriate.

By the way, constitutionally the "Union Jack" is our national flag and "God save the Queen" our national anthem and should be played on all formal occasions! Just few people are aware of this.

Thank you for all the points and information given! I truly appreciate them, and will try to make the best out of these information for my research.

autumn_wind

to me it is a pleasure to seek to assist others and thank you for giving the opportunity to assist you.